i.e. say there's 7 possible futures where the object gets close, and only 3 when it goes away

from what i've learned, you can pretty much just do an anova on any physics data and it gives you anything you need to know about the system. I'm not much of a modeler.

iterate this smoothly over time, you'll see an object fall smoothly towards energy

but to truly understand this, you have to blow apart your classical understanding of how time works,

get real confortable with spin statistics theorem of boson and fermions is a good start

yeah you can do anova

if you have enough data

its not as good as theory though

ill just stick to newtonian

i'm happy bending time. but i'm not so happy with ideas like cutting time in a place and reattaching it somewhere else. quantum physics is really unintuitive. i'm probably just a physics normie though.

usually we do permutations about a harmonic interval to evaluate the path intergral

we cant do the true intergral because its infinite

and save myself the headache that wil never pay off

to me it pays off because the purpose of life is to understand what i am, and the world i inhabit

at least for me

never lose that drive.

doesnt pay the bills though

yours isnt the end all either

yeah i recognize its my personal preference for how to live

its just a more complex model

very true

and not the real thing

i see what you mean

well yes, we can never prove we have the final model

i think we might be close honestly. QM is fantastically good the only flaw is its not background independent like GR

the final model is the universe itself.

Nothing we can invent can explain the real model, because it would be made up of parts of the real model

we need a model for QM where spacetime is emergent instead of baked in

whats M ?

you can't make it more simple without cutting corners and generalising.

the thing is QM is ridiculously simple

and it works everywhere but black holes

M for Mexican

To understand QM you need nothing more than basic linear algebra, basic calculus, and abstract algebra

yeah but i think qm is a general idea, it doesn't account for every single action at every point in time... i understand that sentence i just made can be broken apart easily though .lol

but theres always deeper layers

can you explain what you mean by that

it can explain almost everything, it just cant predict all outcomes

basically we need better resolution at smaller scales to really see what's happening. qm is predictive, but not an exact model of reality.

the biggest problem is QM treats time and space as absolute, when we know theyre not

theyre emergent